I want to publicly apologize to Samantha Geimer for my cavalier remarks on “The Howard Stern Show” speculating about her and the crime that was committed against her. Fifteen years later, I realize how wrong I was. Ms. Geimer WAS raped by Roman Polanski. When Howard brought up Polanski, I incorrectly played devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative. I didn’t take Ms. Geimer’s feelings into consideration and for that I am truly sorry.

So, Ms. Geimer, I was ignorant, and insensitive, and above all, incorrect.

That quote strikes me as being sincere. I'm certainly willing to forgive him and move on. If Samantha can forgive Polanski, I'm pretty sure she can forgive Quentin as well. Unfortunately, I think there will be many who won't...

I think that kind of "logic" is what we're talking about when we say people are getting self righteous:

"Quick confession: Quentin Tarantino was always my answer when someone would ask me “who is your favorite filmmaker?” This is no longer the case. I’m super disgusted. And should have been for awhile with N-dropping films but I let it slide. But this Uma thing? Nah he’s canceled."

Once again, this is not about Tarantino being a douchebag or not, it's about people claiming it has an impact on his work because he can't be their friend anymore. I don't think it's as complicated as a Louis C.K/Louie thing in the way you perceive the work. We have a lot if nuanced, interesting conversations out there, but the people in Twitter getting thousands of retweeted with "Bitch please, I'm wooooooke" comments are a reality.

Is it because a lot of people watch movies as they would eat at McDonald? As if it were a product and not an object made by artists? So you hear that the person behind the counter is an asshole and it's only about trashing the person since you've already been to the bathroom?

People get smug and don't want to be nuanced when they think they're morally right. Not to say they're not, I'm on their side, but the outrage culture, its noise might be important, but not because of the noise itself, because of all the real, boring, nuanced conversations that are also taking place because it became noisy. The story about Aziz not being about saying "Asiz, you're erased" but about how too many men take sex for granted and how women accept it, a fucked up norm, is an example. And it lead to a great article: http://theweek.com/articles/749978/female-price-male-pleasure

We're in a situation where we are aknowledging shitty behaviour. It's too easy to always jump to the conclusion that all shitty behaviour is necessarily made by shitty human beings. Even things like racism don't have to be something you are in your DNA, and that you can be racist, without even being "a racist" like we understand it, is something that could make us better at understanding us—which ultimately makes it easier to change things for the better. I still remember making a transphobic comment when I was 12. So I was transphobic, didn't think it was a big deal, it was just this funny thing that made no sense to me. Guess what? It can change. And at 22, 32, etc, you can still have things in you that can be corrected—you can still improve your understanding.

Tarantino will probably stay an overbearing megalomaniac, but he won't force people to do things they don't want to, I'm almost positive about that, and maybe he'll consider if a woman—or a girl...—"wanted it" or not, even if the man is someone he admires.

I'll quote "someone":

"People think if I make a judgment call that it's a judgment on them. But that's not what I do, and that's not what should be done. I have to take everything and play it as it lays. Sometimes people need a little help. Sometimes people need to be forgiven. And sometimes they need to go to jail. And that's a very tricky thing on my part... making that call. The law is the law, and heck if I'm gonna break it. But if you can forgive someone... well, that's the tough part. What can we forgive? Tough part of the job. Tough part of walking down the street."

Who wants to do the work when you can be retweeted for your clean moral integrity.

While I'm happy Uma's footage has been exposed, the Polanski defense is a bummer because I have a feeling it could make for a furtive QT compromising material in his upcoming Manson movie (heavily featuring Polanski) that he would have filmed had liberal Hollywood-ites remained ignorant schmucks. It's not like the Stern interview was hidden in an undisclosed bunker, it's been available on youtube for 12 years, not to mention the multiple repeat airings it had on E! when the show ran on that channel. It's just weird, is all. Tarantino said a really dumb thing on the #1 terrestrial radio show that used to do bits like spreading mayo on a girl's behind and flinging salami at it trying to make it stick. It's like these actors saying they regret working with Woody in 2017. The entire film community has known about his allegations for 25 YEARS, and you signed up for a bit nothing role in Wonder Wheel (2017) and it's the biggest regret of your career? you raging douchebag, you probably get paid more for an episode of whatever garbage soon-to-be-canceled do than that 3 minute cameo you did and you have to publicly come out said it's the biggest regret of your career??? this is after his daughter wrote that NYT piece and a quarter century after soon-yi? sorry to go on a tangent, but the hypocrisy is steep.

yes, what drenk and something spanish are saying reflect my feelings on the matter. obviously in a civilized environment like xixax we can have smart discussions on these topics, but out there is getting increasingly noisy and dumb. I've always been turned off by self righteousness and I can spot it pretty quickly, and the #metoo movement has been widely infected with it in sinister ways. I know is not the politically correct thing to say, but it feels is more about pointing fingers and being morally superior to others than about stoping and preventing abuse.

it's as toxic an atmosphere as the one is trying to eradicate. this tarantino thing is a good example. I mentioned before that this outrage culture is increasingly serving no purpose at all, and I still don't understand the purpose or the accomplishment of unearthing a 15 year old interview on Howard Stern except if the purpose is to smear the guy. What good is that doing to rape victims, really? Or what light does it shade on the Polanski case? What's the point? Well, it's clickbait, and the situation is so predictable now that they can bring up this old boring interview and now we have a lot of idiotic voices weighing in the guy's films, his methods, his foot fetish, and wether the figure of the film director or auteur should disappear. It's all so dumb you have to re read stuff to make sure that's whats going on, and everyone is so sure of their lame opinions.

I mentioned before that this outrage culture is increasingly serving no purpose at all, and I still don't understand the purpose or the accomplishment of unearthing a 15 year old interview on Howard Stern except if the purpose is to smear the guy.

I'm sorry, what? Reread what you wrote here and really think about what you're saying.

Men are being held accountable for their misogyny, verbal/physical abuse, and sexual assault for the first time in history. What does unearthing an interview do? It holds Tarantino accountable for shit he got away with that he didn't properly atone for. It makes him do some much needed soul searching, think about his actions, apologize, and hell, persuade some of his other diehard fans who will seemingly follow him into the depths of hell to rethink how they deal with these issues as well. What Tarantino said in that interview was disgusting. His "I was playing devil's advocate" excuse is ridiculous.

You guys are essentially saying come on, it was 15 years ago, and he's such a great filmmaker, he deserves a pass. That's complete bullshit.

Outrage culture isn't a good way to describe what's been happening. If you're exhausted from it, take a break from the internet for a while.

It makes him do some much needed soul searching, think about his actions, apologize, and hell, persuade some of his other diehard fans who will seemingly follow him into the depths of hell to rethink how they deal with these issues as well.

This is the definition outrage culture, because even if people admit they were wrong, and they apologize, and admit that they learned something, people don't accept the apology (even if the actual victim in this case might) and basically want their career to be over. Of course, most of the people who act this way are saints who never did anything wrong in their lives, because if they had, they should be ruined forever, because no excuse would be good enough.

It makes him do some much needed soul searching, think about his actions, apologize, and hell, persuade some of his other diehard fans who will seemingly follow him into the depths of hell to rethink how they deal with these issues as well.

This is the definition outrage culture, because even if people admit they were wrong, and they apologize, and admit that they learned something, people don't accept the apology (even if the actual victim in this case might) and basically want their career to be over. Of course, most of the people who act this way are saints who never did anything wrong in their lives, because if they had, they should be ruined forever, because no excuse would be good enough.

yes, I was going to point at that too.

So the thing now is to search up and down for people's controversial statements of the past and exhibit them on the public courts and "holding them accountable" so they can "atone"? OK.

What I wrote wasn't about giving him a pass. I'm not saying what he said is find. I think it wasn't about Polanski. Look, people are still mostly fine with everyone who's working for him, worked for him, won Oscars because of him, it was even fashionable to defend him fifteen years ago, so if you want everyone to atone for it now...Which isn't happening since I guess we're waiting for the Obi-Wan Kenobi Spin-Off Backlash before wondering what Ewan McGreggor thinks of Polanski so he can at one his previous sins? I don't know. It seems pointless, I'm more curious about what people are doing now than people writing about how they regret working for Allen, etc.

The 03 interview served as a way to feel better about the Bashing Tarantino days, as a way to counfound everything, his past comments about Polanski, the accident, the "juicy" details added in the NYT article about spiting and choking that aren't quotes from Thurman.

It feels messy on purpose.

Then: I'm not saying MeToo didn't have positive effects. Of course it did! Outrage—which here means fake outrage, noise, affirmation of your moral superiority—is social media favorite way to respond to everything. Between that and the alt-right, I'm sorry, but it's easy to be exhausted by the toxicity of the discourse. But like I said in my previous comment, there are still clever conversations taking place behind the noise, and they can be heard, too. But is it strange to worry about how the culture is reacting to everything? You can dismiss Twitter as not being real life. But it became a way of life, a way to think, to interact, and it has effects in the world. The current president of the United States is a product of the internet.

But anger is also normal sometimes. I'm not saying that anger should be hidden. What I call outrage culture isn't a judgment of every manifestation of anger in the internet.

My best friend put it thusly: Right now society is forcing out a long-lodged, thoroughly hard and black, sinking turd, that will inevitably tear along with it all manner of tissue - good, bad, somewhere in between - and that we need to just let it scoot on out, no matter the nature or abundance of the detritus. I'm still feeling out my feelings on the more "self-righteous" and "smug" elements of the Court of Public Opinion, but firmly believe the movement to be, in general, a great and necessary thing; that said, I still believe in due process. It's complicated, to put it simply. I support the movement 100%, yet I'm one of the few who will still vocally defend Woody Allen - because in that case there exists, whether you like it or not, reasonable doubt, with pretty ample evidence to back it up, which people simply reject these days. EDIT: But then again, why should I waste my breath defending him? His days are numbered, his greatest work is long behind him, he's not going to face charges even if he is guilty - what's the point? His great movies are still great. Therefore I resolve to stay off Twitter, shut my mouth, listen, and support.

Logged

"Do you laugh at jealousy?"

"No, I don't even laugh at seasickness! I happen to regard jealousy as the seasickness of passion."

It's disappointing that people are so easily triggered by outrage, when there's so much we should be outraged about. If you can't bring yourself to feel that outrage, that's alright — take a deep breath, sit down, and let others do the work.

Demanding politeness and absolute perfect fairness from a movement forcing social change is an unreasonable expectation. It's fine to point out overreaches and examples of unfairness (because they happen and will continue to happen). But any huge shift in culture like this is going to be messy and uncomfortable. What's important is that change is happening. Your personal needs and sensibilities as a reader and consumer of culture are absolutely secondary.